Cursor launches Origin, GitHub alternative(cursor.com) |
Cursor launches Origin, GitHub alternative(cursor.com) |
For now Arc is staying in Github: https://github.com/Basekick-Labs/arc
At a certain point, just working there will become a death knell for anyone's career. And it certainly must be getting harder to hire good people. The spiral will be relentless, and I see no work to stop it.
Sad.
No thanks. I want GitHub alternative, not Cursor with source control attached.
I'm fortunate I don't rely on any forge for my solo work except for backups. In my personal stack I just have a log and content-addressed object kv storage, which can project to git if needed, or can be committed to git as files. And docker if I need isolation for CI/CD.
The most interesting alternative to me is atomic.dev (check their very informative blog posts) but I'll be keeping an eye on all of them.
also crazy how the noisemakers about rails scaling for GitHub have gone quite all of a sudden i.e Github being on the main rails branch.
anyways the future is decentralized - a developer from say Russia/ Ukraine (Crimea), Iran etc - wouldn't be able to access GitHub but surely they can access decentralized repos without the permission of not being from a forbidden country as if they're at fault for their country's ills.
> Access blocked, please contact support.
No link to contact support, on help page no way to contact the actual support. Classic Musk tech.
But just saying that I would probably argue against any new forge at my workplace if it didn't adopt the jujutsu model for changes. While agents can wrangle git better than 90% of developers, jujutsu just works much better for both.
Then again, what did I expect from a company named cursor.
“GitHub has so many outages, but dammit, that other one has a terrible name, it’s practically unusable”.
And origin is a pretty great name to give a git hosting platform. And do you think GitHub, Gitlab are original?
Cursor was also a great name given that it evolved into an advanced AI assisted auto complete. I think their team does a solid job with naming.
Without additional search terms you get the wrong results.
A word that is already used in computer is a bad name.
And with AI it won’t get better. Ambiguity is a source of confusion and mistakes.
By your logic pull/push/main are also great names.
One main purpose of a name is distinguishability.
The main limitation right now is that to share the code with anyone outside your Cursor organization, you need to sync it with GitHub.
Jokes aside, this is a smart move by Cursor. As you can probably tell by the comments here, it's not for the experienced developers, but it will be a natural choice for vibe coders.
Origin has a chance to be the future of this space, with a clean slate and reputation. I pray they don't soil it.
While the real solution is to actually self-host as I said before [0], it is worth testing to see how much can GitHub's users tolerate the endless outages and unreliability and where they go next.
We'll see if they want Cursor Origin or the declining GitHub.
There are many people who will not touch this and look down upon those that do. Ethics and morals still seem to have some weight
I don't want either tbh. There's plenty of open source alternatives. If there's anyone I trust less than Microsoft, it's Elon Musk.
Surely they have a chance of doing it again with Origin
Until the entity becomes popular enough, like I just searched for "stripe" and all visible results were about the payment company.
My guess is there will be at least dozens if not hundreds.
Let me thing about it.
No.
[2] https://radicle.network/nodes/seed.radicle.dev/rad%3Az3gqcJU...
[4] https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m...
What makes Github special is the ecosystem and integrations. Sentry, Linear, and so many other tools have special UX around Github. You need centralization (or at the very least, a standard) for that.
It sucks to see Github's fall from grace, but I just can't bring myself to use a service like this under the custody of SpaceX. I've been saying this for a while, but I really wish Linear would swoop in and become the unified platform for software development.
Agreed. It's like going from bad to worse. Not to mention, Origin doesn't even support actions. They are doing the easiest part of git hosting and no mention of anything that actually makes Github what it is. What Origin is offering is literally a weekend project, and anything having to do with Elon is arguably one of the least trustworthy organizations in whatever industry he chooses to participate in. No, thank you.
This is going nowhere. GitLab is the cautionary tale. Massive funding, nine figures of ARR, years of losses, and most of the revenue comes from self-managed enterprise licenses rather than the SaaS. If the best-funded attempt lands there, I don't see how this one goes anywhere when they have not even a minimum viable product and reputational issues right out of the gate.
Like a specification[^0], which is exactly what ActivityPub is and what federation in Forgejo is built around?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub
I'm sure that sentry and co could spend a few bucks and commit a KPI in one of their upcoming quarters to figure out the activity pub spec and support integrating with it if their hearts desired. It's a chicken egg problem and we all know chickens exist. It's clear that the centralized model is getting left behind, especially as the EU is moving away from US services and they continue to invest in open source, European-based alternatives like Codeberg and Forgejo.
One great thing about the rise of AI is that now it's super easy to make and maintain integrations. This is a place where AI coding uniquely shines due to the points being well defined and mostly quite standard.
This is going to hurt the monopoly power of software companies. But it'll be great for allowing the proliferation of smaller companies, open source, and home grown solutions.
I'm already seeing the pendulum swinging back to local first instead of cloud services.
And then, 5 years later, we are back at square one when everybody uses Linear and they start going the fate of GitHub. Self-hostable, standardized alternatives are the only real sustainable solution.
I think people often forget that GitHub is really more akin to a social network than it is a software development tool.
By that I mean the stuff that makes GitHub great is all the same stuff that originally made social networks exciting (back before the algorithm was tuned into a horrifying cycle of negativity).
github didn’t start with those things. Those things came with adoption.
Its like all those people who bemoan their favourite software not existing on Linux as a reason not to switch, completely oblivious to the fact that this hegemony is the reason linux doesn’t have that software.
It’s like an appeal to the status quo - its self fulfilling, impossible to break.
Given the history here, No matter which tool becomes the death star of developer workflow it always trends towards complexity and the challenges that come with it. Hosting your own doesn't become a panacea as most IT/ops teams also struggle with uptime and upgrades (increasingly relevant).
The only way out IMHO as customers picking two of these goliaths of sending a clear signal to them that we're happy to pay them handsomely for a stable and less sprawling product. Or a hosted open source version with a different cost structure that doesn't drive these wild swings at feature bloat and the inherent instability that comes with that chase.
We have a standard! It’s this great decentralized VCS called git. For most of the stuff integrations do, they’re just showing code or commits — both of which are readily available in a copy of the repo.
Probably the one thing that’s missing is a standardized webhook system so that your git repo storage could tell integrations when stuff changes. Though even that isn’t strictly necessary if the integrations keep a copy of the repo up to date.
I think there is plenty or room to innovate on just the basics of PR and codereview.
I think “a standard” is the key here. There is no reason why integrations must work through a proprietary centralized service.
Forgejo and Codeberg I look at as more like hobby projects. I would not trust them with my code.
With some wizardry applied, I effectively have an "Excel for worktrees", a very productive and low-friction environment. https://replicated.live/blog/crdt
I'm not a big fan of Github right now either but I wouldn't consider this alternative due to its ownership chain.
How about neither?
Man I wish we stuck with Subversion at this point.
About half of the comments will be generic criticisms of Twitter, SpaceX, etc. for things that may or may not have happened, or personal complaints about Elon Musk.
I get hating his politics, and his predictions are often behind schedule, but he certainly says what he thinks and isn't in some shady user data markting business like zuckerberg.
Anyone who trusts Altman over Musk is... I don't know. Give me the autist over the sociopath when it comes to handling my data.
I'm rather surprised people would expect it work any different for non-local "AI".
I guess the joke is "come to Origin, your code is already there".
His little "DOGE" endeavor was actively caught exfiltrating personal data about everyone in the country, and the first thing that happened after SpaceX acquired Cursor was pumping all of the data Cursor had acquired into Grok training.
He is quite literally the shining example of "Imma do what I want, even if it's against my own terms of service or otherwise illegal, and then you can try to sue me over it later".
Is Elon maybe just living rent free in your head?
I guess I personally wouldn't categorize it as a "mess" and the conversations I read about it here make me think I'm using an entirely different product than everyone else.
github for large project that rely on CI tool is a nightmare (cost, downtime, etc.)
I'm guessing you dont know about the github actions bug that was running and endless loop consuming 100% cpu costing orgs insane amounts of money that they didn't fix for 3 years.
Earlier today our app, used by a handful of actual production customers, went down for 30 minutes due to a GCP migration to a new project and we screwed up a secret in prod. This was an all hands on deck firedrill with 5 whys and incident reports and chaos.
Github has been having major production outages routinely! There are companies who can't release, can't build, can't view issues, basically can't work. I'd imagine most orgs using Github have been forced to move off of them or create an alternate approach to actually get shit done.
I use GitHub a lot and it does what I need well enough, but I wouldn't spend money on the level of service or performance it generally delivers.
What github is good for is discovery, getting contributions on open source projects (because it's so popular), and integrations. If you wanted to, you could host your open source project on Forgejo and use github as a mirror just to benefit from the visibility and get contributions.
So there is more to lose than just the service being unreliable.
As a person he's either a poser or a neo-nazi. As a government agent he's responsible for many deaths and as of yet untold harm. Tesla was one of the earliest EV manufacturers, but these days they're overpriced and will be remembered for panel gaps and being destroyed by a car wash. SpaceX has done a lot for that sector, but will mostly be remembered as the company that fucked astrophotography with 10s of thousands of satellites. And Twitter has been dragged into irrelevance so badly it was being called a "reverse startup." Neuralink seems to be going nowhere...
Where's the benefit?
Yes, Sentry or whoever else could build a Codeberg integration, or a Forgejo one, or a Gitlab one. But these would all be bespoke. There is no standard. So the one with the biggest market share ends up with the most integrations. This is where we are today.
I'm all for open standards. But I don't even know of a proposal for such a standard.
Sure, with AI tooling, you can vibe code your own browser extensions or other integrations in some cases. But for a lot of platforms, that just won't cut it. That's before we even get into the maintenance burden of that.
Interfaces exist in programming languages. The strategy pattern is one of the gang of four patterns. I'm sure a good engineer or an AI can figure it all out or is that too hopeful? Unless Sentry engineers or AI are too incompetent to make adapters? I hope not, the market is in big trouble if a dev tooling org cant make tools for where devs are
As someone who pays github, I'm super annoyed at the downtime and still I'm getting charged for actions running that all fail from their lack of concern for their enterprise customers.
Having some independent pools of capacity for paying vs. free customers isn't rocket science, it's basic competence (or care). I'm quite sure their are competent people remaining at GitHub (although I hear most of their original folks have left, and the 2nd tier of folks who joined from microsoft seem lackluster at best). I chalk this up to lack of care, or hubris, or both.
I also don’t buy their excuse that it’s due to increased loads due to AI. If that were the case then we’d see more patterns to the outages. But instead it affects all GitHub systems but at different times. It feels more like a problem with their orchestration layer than capacity issues.
I use it quite a lot and the first time I actually witnessed downtime myself was yesterday.
It also shows there’s a fundamental problem with their architecture or their development pattern to have these sorts of issues so frequently.
Anecdotally: at work I saw quite a lot of github-uptime-related issues, and because they're the central host for everything they become *cough* load bearing for a huge amount of the company. Stability and performance has been dramatically worse than the self-hosted phabricator+gitolite before it.
Migrating to different cloud vendors, while difficult, is something that people have done many times before. There's only finite number of incongruences that appear when moving cloud vendors. It's rather difficult to explain the ongoing problems several years after the fact.
Anyone that's worked at a startup knows that one of the best things about it is reflecting on all of the asinine, if not genuinely stupid policies of your previous employer so as not to repeat them. Without any insider knowledge, the practices and procedures GitHub had prior to acquisition probably look nothing like those post-acquisition.
In my opinion, Git is holding software development back. Git only cares about lines of text. This is not enough in today's world.
But that doesn’t mean we should have single centralized tool that does everything.
I’d posit there’s no big loss if you broke these things up and each had their own copy the repo (if needed):
- CI/CD
- issues
- code review/pull requests
- release artifact distribution
- discovery+social credit for open source
You could host your repo on any dumb storage somewhere that speaks git+ssh or git+https and each tool could pull from there.
I'm working on git-inspired VCS based on syntax tree nodes stored in prolly trees. Might that be enough? I've not 100% locked down the format yet, but tentatively it looks like this: https://gist.github.com/conartist6/7dd40697140965ee343de93b9...
And I say this as a certified git hater.
A lot of SaaS companies change their API in subtle ways throughout the months probably too rapidly. GraphQL schema changes, splitting apart one api endpoint into 2, changes to authentication method required. A thousand little cuts.
This used to be my biggest time waster. Now it's barely on my radar. Life changing for me. I guess your mileage may vary.
Concurrently, the writing is on the wall for us SaaS product providers - lower margins, and more competition for the same reasons. I welcome it. More quality and choice at a better price for everyone.
Among many other things he has openly suggested that the EU should be abolished and national sovereignties restored and donated to parties that tow that line.
As I recall, in GHE I remember finding that you could even turn off the repo's wiki at that point and then reset it to point to your docs/wiki/ folder and still have the Wiki interface but pointing it to a branch in the same repository. That was a while ago and I don't know if it is still supported in GHE. I also remember it was work managing that wiki branch because Wikis didn't directly support PR workflows if you have branch protection policies. Also from the documentation it doesn't look like it is supported in Public GitHub right now, which seems a shame to me, as someone who likes all documentation in the same repo as the source. I haven't needed Wikis in public GitHub much, so I haven't tried to do anything like point them to a main repo branch.
Git became popular because Linus Torvalds created it and it's used for the Linux kernel. If it can succeed there then it's battle proven for sure and that's why people pick it. Almost no one is working at that scale though so don't sweat it. Use what you want.
Mercurial was pretty nice back in the day and I think people still use it. If I was going to use something other than git these days, I'd probably take a look at fossil. That thing is so damn cool. You don't even need something like github with that because it's literally built into the fossil binary. And when I say binary, I mean a single, standalone binary for the whole thing.
Gitlab as a product is miles ahead of GitHub at this point. (Except at the point of scaling very large repositories I gather.) There is just very little money in saas beside the bespoke enterprise contracts.
I’m not sure how revenue between GitHub and Gitlab compared before the Microsoft acquisition and now but GitHub has always leaned on being the popular tool with the network.
Happy to answer any questions about Origin or source control in general!
Are there any fundamental differences, ie ways of working that solve the worktrees problem?
We wanted to release a beta so people could start experimenting with our scalability and extensibility themselves. Over the next few weeks, you can expect a handful of features starting to change source control to better understand and work with agents.
Knowing things like: Will my code end up in Grok? What ownership do I have of my content, etc... matter.
Over the next few weeks you can expect a lot more from us on integrations with agents, understanding agent-written code (without having to read through all of the code), and automatically getting your PRs to a mergable state. Stay tuned :)
I'm sure folks would be interested to hear about what types of SaaS you've replaced for perf reasons, especially if you'd be willing to go back to a paid SaaS offering that was very responsive with agent-scale rate limits.
this could be helpful on larger cross platform products/repos (maybe too overfitted on my use case, since i am working across multiple devices (ssh works but the repo code sync is a bit of an overhead with multiple agents and devices that could be better))
Positive motivation for tech and the future makes all the difference.
Honestly, that does not look too good for you or the offering - and this is coming from someone that just chose Cursor over Claude Code a week ago.
we all have worked on software. we all know we aren't exactly the best people to point to ToS or how decisions are made higher up from us
You get:
- Self hosting your git hosting (if you want)
- Self hosting your issues/PRs (if you want)
- Self hosting your CI (if you want)
- Github-like social features (I have one account, I can follow, star, add issues and PRs to any repo on tangled)
> "hey can you push to origin main?"
now has two separate meanings.
A LLM may inadvertently push your code to a new provider without you knowing. It's walking a thin line between genius-growth-move and domain typosquatting.
But the website uses 100% CPU. And this is a beta for paid plans, not a GitHub alternative.
All your codebases are belong to us.
however, there is a practicality issue too. Avoiding all untrustworthy software would have you end up living in a shack in the woods foraging for food.
There's a lot of space to innovate around collaboration and version control in the age of agentic workflows.
If you can see entire version histories of how code is generated, what bugs occur, what fixes are made and how they're implemented, you have the entire human and machine coding feedback loop to learn from.
I wonder if they were waiting for a major githut incident :D
It's funny that they are trying to replace GitHub by the part that already has multiple alternatives tho. This will fail without a doubt.
just add repo-level agents, org-level agents and done. they could have got 50B valuation by now
Every agent platform is moving toward you living with them, logging into them, working on their remote computers, only accessing your code and product artifacts with them. This is the caveat we will see with full push-to-cloud swing early on.
Maybe agentic no-code is the natural evolution but this push is happening too early and naively imo. It all feels wrong and I hope industry remains as dissatisfied with this type of lock-in as we’ve always been.
But after looking a bit more into it, they are still following the same model as Bluesky in that the author of an issue or comment or PR is the owner of the resource, and it lives on their PDS, but they are considering changing that (and I hope they do it soon) by having the record be created on the repo PDS (so the knot basically) and a pointer record on the user's PDS proving they are the author.
ATProto has all that's required to do so, so I hope they do it soon, they are still in alpha after all but I find the interoperability very promising because you can have independent code hosting regardless of the opinions of forge X (which I think is the main reason why people move away from GitHub), but still be a part of an interoperable ecosystem that acts just like it is a single platform.
fwiw, the main site also seems to be down right now, infinite spinner. Docs and blog are loading though
Tangled CEO here. How are we pushing Rust exactly? :D Nix, yes but you don't really need to touch it at all with our Alpine-based CI images.
We have been under heavy load the past day or so, we're working round the clock to scale!
I don't understand how it forces you to engage with Rust. It happens to be written in Rust but that shouldn't be a major consideration for a user
If you want to build an alternative Knot implementation (git Hosting) you can use anything as long as the API is compatible ?
Same for all of the parts of Tangled really
Also, even if it's down, unlike GitHub you can self host your own AppView so it's never down for you
* That is, if a lab like Deepseek doesn't release a "good enough" model for the cost of electricity + a thin margin. Then all AI company lose and all consumers win.
Why? I mean, if you assume that the moment some threshold of intelligence is reached it will suddenly explode and self-improve at a pace no one would be able to ever catch up with, then yes probably only one can win. But I think it’s more sci-fi than reality which is often more nuanced and boring.
This already exists, in several tiers, depending on what you can afford to run (in terms of VRAM).
Deepseek V Flash 0731 is already good enough for many things.
Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages.
Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ?
Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see in movies and TVs ?
I'm not arguing, I am just struggling to understand what it usually means when somebody says that, it's not like competitors will go bankrupt the second OpenAI/Anthropic/Whatever does something specific.
Mercedes has a ~5% profit margin on this revenue.
SaaS, even AI SaaS is expected to have much higher profit margins at scale.
And on top of that, Mercedes shrunk by 10% revenue over the last year, rather than growing, which makes sense because they missed EVs and are now managing decline and returning money to shareholders.
Inflated valuation of buyout, based on inflated valuation of SpaceX
ok, then it is indeed clickbait. S3 is still "infrastructure".
Also this implies that nobody tried to build a more performant/efficient system for git for ~13 years? That's crazy...
* CI/CD
* KB system
* Task management
Of course I have the personal software etc. but this is work stuff. Agents can create granular tasks and interact through my KB/task system so that they can own subsystems (this is useful for context isolation and performance). Commercial SaaS just get overwhelmed by this. Even hobbyists usually take the Open Office approach to copying a large amount of features and then don’t deliver performance improvements.
If I’m being honest, I would gladly switch to a full SaaS solution except all of them get rate-limited on things a single 5950x can handle. It’s less a money issue (I pay for Slack etc.) and more that their use-case appears to be people who work slowly but my use-case is machines which work frequently.
I fully expect Mitchell Hashimoto will deliver some kind of high performance software factory machine and I will gladly simply pay for that.
Such checks, although not perfect, do prevent a huge amount of spam and bots by having a very real cost for bots/spammers, and essentially no cost (other than their privacy) for the user.
It will eventually have the same uptime issues as GH (or worse) with less ability to provide stable fixes.
I have a lot of dev tooling which assumes code is stored on public GitHub and/or GitHubEnterprise. This produces some degree of lock-in, in that all that code would have to be rewritten to migrate to something else. (Yes, AIs can help, but they still don't make migration effortless.)
The major Git hosters tend to implement roughly the same concepts, albeit with lots of little variations. It would be great if there were some sort of standardised API everyone implemented. In the absence of that, it makes sense for people to emulate the incumbent's APIs as a de facto standard, just like how other vendors copy OpenAI's APIs for talking to LLMs.
1. SpaceXAI has shown no track record of being able to maintain uptime
2. By nature, any GitHub alternative is going to be a tiny fraction of the scale, so keeping it up should be expected
Self hosted servers go down too and why people have picked hosted solutions like GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab
atproto is a red flag for me now, toxic leaders at bluesky, who effectively control the protocol, it's not really open for others to have a say in what it looks like
you also don't have private repos and you will need to have centralized app view permission addons to have parity with user expectations, given the weak permissioned data proposal bluesky chose (their own proposal that works for what they need)
Might not be very technical, but I hope you find it insightful. If you absolutely need technical, consider reading this: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/full...
Since you are here, do you have any updates about the issue of issues and PRs living in the author's PDSs and not on the knot ? (Which also acts as the repository's PDS if I am not mistaken)
> As time goes on we are re-assessing the idea of users owning what is "collaborative data" (issues, PRs, etc.) on their PDSes - soon may come the day that an issue also lives on the knot as a source of truth, with an accompanying pointer record on user PDS to attest that it's theirs.GitHub is saying the same thing
re: pushing, when I looked many months ago, it looked very much like the rust/nix/jj club, who are on average very opinionated about "good" tech choices and try to shoehorn others into using them. It's a culture I'm not interested in being around
downtime and self-hosting is not a reason most people are convinced to move forges, it takes a lot to get someone there
Creating a world-ruling AGI which feels mild sympathy for its creators, sharing some table scraps with them. Not sure if /s...
Once Azure's massive spend is online things will slowly get better.
Aren't they are training their LLM on public repo, to me it's seem like a gold mine.
What is your best example?
They planned to be fully off AWS in 2027 but they're continuing to ramp usage.
Azure doesn't scale.
I'd never put my data on anything owned by Musk. Period. I'd take lower availability from GitHub or a worse alternative (feature-wise) than move Origin.
Your GitHub Enterprise comparison is wrong, because with an onprem github entreprise you don't have the social github features (and that's the whole point of tangled, use something else if you want a private forge for your company, it's not for this purpose)
My point is, Tangled being on ATProto, you can still access all of the repos, PRs and issues of other people by looking through your self-hosted appview even if the official appview is down, because an appview, is just that, an "app *view*" It's the view layer in your traditional app, and ATProto is the database.
It's a view of the data on the ATProto network, it is not the data holder, everyone can be their own data holder that is visible through any appview.
> downtime and self-hosting is not a reason most people are convinced to move forges, it takes a lot to get someone there
Yes, I agree, but I personally think tangled is great because of the interoperability
People on codeberg, on gitlab, on github, on self-hosted gitea instances, on self hosted gitlab instances, and so on, all control their issues, PRs, and git repos (they run on their own infra) but they are also more independent, are not subject to a central platform's policies (or are subject to the one they prefer) and so on, and they also introduce contributor friction, you need separate accounts, it can be difficult to cross reference issues and PRs accross projects on different forges, users can't easily have a central feed of project they starred.
On tangled you get to have the first part (freedom) while not having the second downside (unique account, cross-references work seamlessly, etc...)
Give me reasons open source projects moved forges away from github, and I am pretty sure if tangled did exist when they did so it would fit more boxes of "why they left" than their target forge.
tangled will struggle to have private repos that align with user expectations for RBAC, atproto ACL permission proposal is insufficient, Bluesky is not interested in alternative proposals, the centralization of atproto is most prominant in who has write permissions to the repos
I am just thinking you do not like tangled because you don't use the social features of github and so don't see the point here. I can understand that, but then tangled is just not for you ?
And yeah ATProto is not the next thing, but IMO having a portable identity and services that can act as "one big single app" are requirements for a modern social protocol to do applications like Twitter,Instagram, and github's social features for example, ATProto is just the one that does it better imo for now.
But again since you are always bringing on private repos, I think tangled is just not for you since the ATProto model is for open data and so fits open source projects really nicely I think.
This isn't entirely true because we're working on our own extensions to the protocol that will enable full-fledged RBAC at a knot/repo level. We're not beholden to PBC and AT Protocol; when needed, we're OK to roll custom bits.
what I hear is another path to app centralization, regardless of your intent, this is what comes out of custom extensions to a protocol
bluesky should have actually been open about the permissioned design process, posting your own proposal to a blog and not entertaining other proposals, or even joining the broader conversation that was happening, is not open in my book
you are incorrect and this is why it's advised not to project the answer but ask a question instead
for clarity, I do in fact use github's social features
I also believe that the idea around the atmosphere that the point of atproto is to have open data is completely misaligned with how most of society wants their data handled, this is based on my talking to people IRL, outside of the echo chambers of social media, what's actually happening is more and more people signing off because of toxicity
open source and small devs do not pay the bills, github is financially sustainable because they have enterprise clients, same for gitlab and bitbucket
Nobody is """pretending""" that in this thread.
The reality that is being asserted is that (1) politics doesn't have to be on-topic for every forum, (2) it's very explicitly not the focus of HN, and (3) even if it were on-topic the guidelines are very clear about ways to engage in a civil fashion and a very large number of comments on Musk-related posts are extremely clearly not doing this and breaking the guidelines.
Hence, downvoting and flagging are the correct things to do.
> untested theories as policy during COVID and then recommended exceptions for BLM protesting.
I feel like the thing you’re trying not to say is “mask wearing”. Untested theories like mask wearing.